If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Current disk failure stats from Russia
Ha, found it again. Pretty interesting and conclusive. They do
not fear naming names, I guess they are not afraid of being sued. They do have failure rates per manufacturer in relation to sales and also have insights into age at failure per manufacturer. While the sample of 4000 drives is not large enough to qualify as scientifically solid, it is IMO the best available data at the moment and (again) shows that the relevant publication by Google was wrong not to separate their numbers by manufacturers (among other things that make the Google results pretty doubtful). In addition, these drives were operated in a variety of different conditions, which also helps relevancy. Executive summary: Seagate: stay away, WD: so-so, Hitachi: best by a fair margin Here is the (english) story on tomshardwa http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...elab,2681.html Here is the Russian link: http://www.storelab.ru/sravnenie-nadezhnosti-hdd.htm Arno -- Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F ---- Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Current disk failure stats from Russia
"Arno" wrote:
In addition, these drives were operated in a variety of different conditions, which also helps relevancy. But not statistical accuracy, since what each one died of should become a separate category of failure mode and a smaller statistical universe in which to judge each failure rate. (But, as you say, this is probably the best data we can get.) I've used only Maxtor (now owned by Seagate) HDs in the past with no failures at all (that I know of), but I think I'll go with Hitachi for rotaional HDs in the future based on this data. And, of course, I'll save on RAM by using a SATA 3 SSD - probably made by Crucial - for the swap file. hee, hee *TimDaniels* |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Current disk failure stats from Russia
In article , Timothy
Daniels writes And, of course, I'll save on RAM by using a SATA 3 SSD - probably made by Crucial - for the swap file. Do you really think that's a good idea? Or were you joking? -- (\__/) (='.'=) (")_(") |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Current disk failure stats from Russia
"Mike Tomlinson" asked:
Timothy Daniels writes And, of course, I'll save on RAM by using a SATA 3 SSD - probably made by Crucial - for the swap file. Do you really think that's a good idea? Or were you joking? Using Crucial is a good idea. :-) *TimDaniels* |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Current disk failure stats from Russia
In article , Timothy
Daniels writes Using Crucial is a good idea. :-) It is, I've always bought Crucial (in fact, I have my eye on one of their SSDs too, fast read speeds for loading OS and apps.) But using an SSD for swap isn't a good idea. -- (\__/) (='.'=) (")_(") |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Current disk failure stats from Russia
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
In article , Timothy Daniels writes Using Crucial is a good idea. :-) It is, I've always bought Crucial (in fact, I have my eye on one of their SSDs too, fast read speeds for loading OS and apps.) But using an SSD for swap isn't a good idea. Historically, you are quite right. But with modern wear-leveling it starts to be a better idea, if the swap area is significantly smaller than the disk. Arno -- Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F ---- Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Current disk failure stats from Russia
Timothy Daniels wrote:
"Arno" wrote: In addition, these drives were operated in a variety of different conditions, which also helps relevancy. But not statistical accuracy, since what each one died of should become a separate category of failure mode and a smaller statistical universe in which to judge each failure rate. I agree. And you would need to look at the full popultaion, how each drive was handled and what load it was under. (But, as you say, this is probably the best data we can get.) Definitely. I've used only Maxtor (now owned by Seagate) HDs in the past with no failures at all (that I know of), but I think I'll go I had about 50 Maxtors (the problematic ones) in a server cluster I built, whith no failures whatsoever except for a few drives inadequately packaged and dropped in shipping. However these were well cooled and surface-scanned every 14 days. I think Maxtors are just not resilient to abuse drives suffer with ordinary consumers, especially wtith regard to inadequate cooling. That their own external drices are inadequately cooled makes this worse. They are perfectly fine in a server-room environment. with Hitachi for rotaional HDs in the future based on this data. I have a lot of WDs now, I like their cheap external drives, were you get the disk and a quite reasonable enclosure for the price of the bare drive. And, of course, I'll save on RAM by using a SATA 3 SSD - probably made by Crucial - for the swap file. hee, hee ;-)=) Arno -- Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F ---- Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Current disk failure stats from Russia
In article , Arno
writes Historically, you are quite right. But with modern wear-leveling it starts to be a better idea, if the swap area is significantly smaller than the disk. Agreed, though I think if the machine is starting to swap in normal use it's better to add more memory than to swap to SSD. (Yes, Tim, I know you were saying that). I personally would always put the swap on a spinning disk along with data and keep the speed of the SSD for loading the OS and apps. -- (\__/) (='.'=) (")_(") |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Current disk failure stats from Russia
"Mike Tomlinson" advised:
Timothy Daniels writes Using Crucial is a good idea. :-) It is, I've always bought Crucial (in fact, I have my eye on one of their SSDs too, fast read speeds for loading OS and apps.) But using an SSD for swap isn't a good idea. Hey! Using a small SSD for a swap (paging) file sounds cool - which should be reason enough to use it! I mean, more RAM is good, but it's just more or the same thing - nothing to talk about. Using a 50GB SSD for swapping parts of those REALLY LARGE files is both occasional RAM backup for those monumental editing jobs and a cool feature to impress clients with. Just say it's part of your Graduated Response Storage (GRS) System, and the contract will be yours. :-) And, of course, if your system architecture limits words to 32 bits and addressing space to 4GB, more RAM than that isn't an option. *TimDaniels* |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Current disk failure stats from Russia
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
In article , Arno writes Historically, you are quite right. But with modern wear-leveling it starts to be a better idea, if the swap area is significantly smaller than the disk. Agreed, though I think if the machine is starting to swap in normal use it's better to add more memory than to swap to SSD. (Yes, Tim, I know you were saying that). Definitely! I see the main use for swap now memopry pages that get allocated but hardly ever used, e.g. in demon processes. That is alsow hy the rule "swap size = memory size" is pretty outdated. I find that 100...256MB are quite enough for modern OSes (sorry, MS does not qualify, not even Win7). I personally would always put the swap on a spinning disk along with data and keep the speed of the SSD for loading the OS and apps. There is a case where it makes sense to put swap on an SSD, namely where you have no choice, e.g. with a hard memory linit and you are forced to user more, distributed over several processes. That is pretty rare though. In doubt, go for more RAM. Arno -- Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F ---- Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Unable to detect IBM HDD. Error "Disk Boot Failure. Insert System Disk" | Steve Jackson | General | 5 | September 25th 05 11:17 PM |
What manufacturer recovers data from its HDD under warranty in Moscow, Russia, free of charge? | Dima | Storage (alternative) | 42 | July 17th 05 07:38 PM |
Disk boot failure insert system disk and press enter | Lambo | Homebuilt PC's | 4 | October 14th 04 01:42 AM |
BOOT DISK FAILURE - ENTER SYSTEM DISK | Kim Van Meter | Homebuilt PC's | 2 | August 22nd 04 05:14 PM |
Disk Boot Failure, Insert System Disk and Press Enter | ezrab | General Hardware | 1 | November 21st 03 07:58 PM |